Skip to main content

About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
of this stuff. it's out in the open. it's up on the websites of u.n., european union, the american bar association, the deans of most law schools in american universities, leading american foundations. it's all there on the internet. people are not talking about world government anybody, but world governance, a form of transnational governance. look at four people, quick views, and talbot, the president of the brookings institution, a major think tank in washington. the former secretary of state, and as a journalist for time magazine in the 1990s, they wrote an article in which he welcomed super national political authority. he said, quote, "i'll bet within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete and all states will recognize a single global authority." he concluded saying "the devra davis luges of power upwards of units of administration is basically a positive phenomena." coe, currently, today, the chief legal adviser of the u.s. state department, in other words, he advises the president on what the law is, was gave a major speech last week at georgetown law,
talking about susan rice, the u.n. ambassador who many think he will nominate to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state. >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> paul: kim, that sure sounds like a president who is ready to nominate susan rice for the state department and my sources suggest that that's exactly what he's going to do. of course, my source haves been wrong before, but if-- and i've been wrong before. but if he does that, is this going to be a really big fight? >> oh, it's going be to be a huge fight because you have had republicans come out already and say, you drop her in the senate nomination battle and then we are going to go to the wall on this one, but i do believe you're right, not only is the president taking an unusual step of devoting during the press conference, but all types of forums to defend susan rice and make the case for her, in this case, you're probably right, paul. >> paul: so, wh
. >>> and the clash in benghazi heats up as charges that the u.n. secretary misled the country about the attack on "meet the press" and other programs. >> our current assessment is that what happened in benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo. >> now sparking a war of words with the president, senators are threatening to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. >> the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better, and if she didn't know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> we'll talk to senator lindsey graham exclusively this morning. >>> plus, the key figures trying to get to the bottom of benghazi and the petraeus affair. chair of the senate intelligence committee senator dianne feinstein of california. and chair of the house intelligence committee, congressman mike rogers of michigan. >>> then after the election, will washington get anything done? talks start on how to avoid the fiscal cliff
and the president did it in front of the u.n. the fact of the matter is they did change the talking points, video ya his own speech after this horrific murder of our four americans. >> why would the fact it was a terrorist attack be redacted? why would that be classified information when it was immediately apparent that it was? >> i don't know. i wish i didn't have to say that because there was an eyewitness account the 24 hours that said there was an organizationer organized jihadist in the crowd. i learned when i was working in intelligence and the navy's anti-terrorism unit rarely do you find a one-armed intelligence officer. they are always saying on whaund but on the other hand and as the paper left the cia, that general petraeus said or allegedly now in a classified hearing that there were organized terrorists involved in the attack and why it was changed, it is too easy to leap to where it was changed in the white house to maybe there were other types of information that maybe had good reason why it was changed and that's why you have an investigation before you leap to an asrgs it was done f
clear -- most recently at the general assembly meeting in september at the u.n., and now we have interesting results from two states here from washington state and from colorado. in addition to the many states -- i think there are 17 or 18 -- where marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes. in these two states, they can be used for recreational purposes. there we have the pressure from the region joined with some of the pressure and trends in shift in public opinion in the u.s., which i think will contribute an ad to greater pressure on the administration at the national level to rethink its policy on drugs, which is clearly having very negative effects or perceived to having negative effects in terms of crime, violence, and corruption in many countries in latin america. i think obama administration will probably say it has done some things to move forward on this issue, talking about shared responsibility, but i think despite some changes in the discourse, the essential elements of the policy have been pretty unchanged until now. again, this does open some -- possibilities. t
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)